Filed: Mar. 15, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7975 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DANNY PRICE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CR-00-780) Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Mo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7975
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DANNY PRICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
Judge. (CR-00-780)
Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Danny Price, Appellant Pro Se. Mark C. Moore, Assistant United
States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Danny Price seeks to appeal the district court’s order
and judgment denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A
certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude Price has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -